[KS] Percival Lowell
Frank Hoffmann
hoffmann at koreanstudies.com
Tue May 19 05:35:32 EDT 2015
Werner Sasse wrote:
> China, the ideal society in contrast to the chaotic changes within
> Europe....
Yes and no. Let's put CHINA aside for now. But JAPAN and KOREA were
considered *barbaric* territories (Japan until some time in the 1880s,
Korea until 1905, when Japan marched in as a proxy of the West to bring
"civilization"). There was nothing "ideal" about these countries, not
for people like Percival Lowell in any case. "Oriental" by no means
equivalent to ideal, and the "exotic" was not per se a positive term.
Oriental, so, everything EAST -- from the Middle East to the Far East,
was rather associated to terms like "backward," "laziness,"
"inefficient," and "cruel." If and when we think of what e.g. Japanese
prints did to Impressionist and later Expressionist artists in Europe
and the U.S., then we should keep in mind two things: (a) until the
1910s -- AND for the large majority of the people (and especially in
the U.S.) it is until the 1920s -- those Western "modern" artists were
either not known or were despised as crazy outcasts, and (b) there
were, of course, parallel and competing notions of barbaric and
romantic idealized images (whereby the 'barbaric' ones were actually
the ones the artists were interested in, in the formal aspects).
People like Percival Lowell, as T.J. Jackson Lears argued in his 1981
book, were confronted with both these images -- that of the idealized
East (e.g. in terms of religion) and that of the barbaric, backward,
inefficient, unorganized culture. His point is (and it is more complex
than I can summarize here!) that the retreat to the Arts and Crafts
movement (that was later inherited by the Japanese -- who then pushed
Taiwan and Korea into the role that Japan had played for Americans and
Europeans!) ... that this retreat was a very basic stepping stone in
direction to American conservatism in later periods. THAT situation is
quite different to Europe, where that movement later, once the Utopian
period was over, split its followers into all sort of political groups!
So, here I would have doubts that it is all the same when we study "the
Other." That is quite different because "base culture" is quite
different.
In Europe, and especially in Germany, the "Oriental Studies"
departments at the universities were big, very big and important, more
than a century before anyone in the U.S. ever looked East (except for
the Chinoiserie trading). Douglas T. McGetchin, in his dissertation,
with the wonderful title _The Sanskrit Reich_, writes in the intro:
"By the end of the nineteenth century, Germany had more university
professors studying Sanskrit than all other European countries
combined. In 1903 in Germany there were forty-seven professors,
including twenty-six full professors, of 'Aryan' studies, a category
that included, as its major component, Indology (the study of ancient
East Indian texts, literature, and culture). This numerous group of
specialists 'surpassed all the rest of Europe and America combined.'"
"The Sanskrit Reich: Translating Ancient India for Modern Germans,
1790-1914."
(unpubl. PhD thesis, U of California at San Diego, 2002)
For central Europeans, the "East" was nothing new and not a "retreat"
as for Americans towards the end of the 19th century. The "East," of
course, was the Orient, with no distinction *yet* between Middle East
and Far East -- that more or less only developed in the 1890s, and
Sinology (and East Asian studies) as a distinctive field only developed
from the 1890s.
At least in German speaking Europe, we had two Orients -- one was the
idealized, ancient, textual, mythic, "Aryan" one -- where by the late
19th century a direct racial and cultural link had been created (which
was then also being adapted by writers like Herrmann Hesse and many
others in the early 20the century), the other, co-existing one, was the
utmost barbaric, lazy, unorganized, cruel, opium-ridden Orient. Before
anyone thinks these were geographically separate places -- no, they
were not. The separation came in trough the time line only, or at least
mostly, and those images really changed rapidly -- mostly in direct
relation to "being colonized" vs. "not-yet-colonized" -- that was at
least the case for all of SOUTH and SOUTH EAST Asia (it gets more
complicated with East Asia, and Japan is the big exception in any case,
as it escaped colonization by early modernization and becoming a
colonizer itself).
Both, the perception of the "Orient" and the role that the Arts and
Crafts movements played in late 19th century in Europe were essentially
different from that in the United States. In Europe the crafts movement
quite quickly let to industrial design schools, or more precisely, to
the merger of fine arts, crafts, and industrial production. We see
idealism and romanticism on the one hand (all those back-to-nature,
vegan, show-me-your-titts-I-show-you-my... groupings related to the key
'Lebensreform' movements), and on the other hand we see the (over time
stronger) movement that is more concerned with the union of crafts &
industrial production & design. To make that very sort: ASIA (and other
far-away parts of the world) served as a source for new formal ideas,
and to some degree indeed as a "retreat." That retreat though, within
the Lebensreform (Life Reform) and Arts and Crafts movement, would
almost immediately be converted into active Utopian ideas which --
although these constructs included in the beginning strong
anti-modernist, anti-rational, anti-analytic elements -- would let to
highly pragmatic schools, art styles, mass movements, and modern social
organizations. Not so in the United States.
Walk into the large American Painting section at the de Young Museum in
San Francisco's Golden Gate Park and you'll walk right out again -- I
guarantee. It's a huge selection of 19th century American landscapes
that all look like British seascapes (just grass instead of water, and
cowboys and farmers instead of smoking battle ships). As a
non-colonial, continental European that much of boredom and nationalism
united in one place comes as a culture shock. You won't find any
show-me-your-titts-I-show-you-my... images there -- no voluptuous,
Catholic Baroque and Rococo ladies. It is the Puritan and
fundamentalist version of Protestantism that sets on biblical
simplicity, without the mightily powerful Lutheran fart! In the U.S.
the Arts and Crafts movement, I think, came from there and at the same
time returned there, as a reaction to industrialization. THAT part --
the reaction to industrialization and the Enlightenment and the
sciences -- is the same. But then, what happened within that movement
is ESSENTIALLY and QUALITATIVELY different, I would argue (if we would
compare the movements in continental Europe and the U.S. -- which you
kind of provoked with your note). In the U.S. it essentially became a
very fundamentalist and conservative movement (until it was taken on
again in the 1960s), while in continental Europe it pretty quickly
began a love affair with modernism and industrialization -- and as
often in all too close relations, it evolved into a love–hate
relationship, nothing all too harmonious. That movement itself, the
culture of that movement, was of an essentially different character in
the United States and continental Europe. The crafts movement as a
"retreat" that T.J. Jackson Lears points to -- that is the same
*antimodernist* "retreat" that East Asian travelers (and all related
culture, such as travelogues) signify for American culture around 1900
as such. But then, if you walk into a museum in say Vienna, and look at
the cultural production from that late 19th century Arts and Crafts
movement there, AND also what exactly East Asian art imports and
influences resulted in, then that is again essentially different from
the United States. That is on the one hand modern and revolutionary in
all formal aspects (and the arts are about form, after all), but then
also modern in its political Utopianism. While there were indeed
overlappings in the Utopian ideas in the EARLY period of the
movement(s), in Europe these ideas quickly developed into something
rather modern and politically progressive. At that point the cat is
trying to swallow its own tail, as we would now have to talk about
various terms such as "anarchism." Yet, part of the problem discussing
the issue is that some of those terms are defined depending on cultural
context.
Best,
Frank
--------------------------------------
Frank Hoffmann
http://koreanstudies.com
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list